Antisemitism With Dr. Joe-Joe McManus
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/06/22
Dr. Joe-Joe McManus reflects on evolving expressions of antisemitism in the U.S., highlighting its increased weaponization, particularly the conflation of anti-Zionism with antisemitism. While both the political left and right acknowledge antisemitism, financial influences and politicized definitions distort genuine understanding and solutions. Education and critical thinking remain vital tools in countering hate. McManus stresses that true change requires embedding antiracism and anti-oppression values into daily life, rather than relying on episodic activism. Systemic change, he notes, is a long-term endeavor that demands consistent ethical decision-making and broader cultural and economic transformation.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: When it comes to antisemitism, what has been your sense of it over the last five decades—or at least four decades—in the United States? To quote Paul Mooney, “Ain’t nothin’ changed but the weather.” So, what has changed about the weather?
Dr. Joe-Joe McManus: Wow, that’s an interesting question. I can’t quite speak to five decades since I’m barely in my fifties, so I do not have personal experience that far back. But I can reflect on the changes I’ve seen over my lifetime.
What’s been especially striking, as a Jewish person myself, is the weaponization of antisemitism. I do not remember that being as prevalent when I was younger. Of course, antisemitism has always been present, but the way it’s being used now—especially in the media, government discourse, and other public arenas—has intensified, particularly in the context of what’s happening in Gaza.
Over time, there’s been a concerted effort to conflate anti-Zionism with antisemitism. That has never been my understanding, and it still is not. That conflation is a political maneuver. Especially in the United States, there is very little general understanding of what Zionism is. Until recent years and recent events, the average American could not have even offered a basic definition.
So what we are seeing now is a bad-faith effort to equate anti-Zionism—and even pro-Palestinian sentiment—with antisemitism. That is probably the most significant shift I’ve observed.
As far as the overall prevalence of antisemitism, I think it has remained relatively steady. There has been some excellent educational work done in schools and by nonprofits to counter antisemitism, and we’ve made some progress there. But the weaponization of antisemitism undermines that progress. It hurts the broader effort to end antisemitism.
Jacobsen: What works in countering antisemitism?
McManus: I am an educator, so my answer will always include education. We must understand concepts, systems, and history from multiple perspectives. We need to be taught how to think critically and distinguish fact from misinformation—or what some now refer to as “alternative facts,” which is a dangerous and misleading concept.
The Internet has made that more difficult. With all the so-called “news” sites and the algorithms feeding people more of what they already consume, people rarely get exposed to other perspectives. We end up stuck in narrow content loops, especially on social media.
Even our more traditional media outlets have changed. And I hesitate to use the word “legitimate” when referring to some of them because many high-profile voices are not reporters. They are not delivering news but offering opinions, often dressed up as reporting.
We must be clear about what constitutes a perspective and hate. I spend much time working on issues related to antisemitism, racism, and other forms of oppression, and one of the most significant problems I see is the framing of hate as just another opinion.
Too often, media will present “both sides”—as if white supremacy, antisemitism, homophobia, and heterosexism are differing viewpoints. That legitimizes oppression. It gives hate a platform under the guise of balance. And when we legitimize these things, they become part of the public’s framework for what is acceptable discourse. People come to see them as just “another way of thinking” when, in fact, they are rooted in bigotry and harm.
It’s a different perspective. I think we have to start understanding more clearly what constitutes a legitimate difference in perspective—such as various interpretations of history or policy—and what is driven by systems of oppression and hate. I may have gone a little off track there, but that always happens in my interviews.
Jacobsen: What do you see—in generic terms, although it is ironic to call them that—that the sociopolitical left in the United States tends to get right about antisemitism? And what do you think the sociopolitical right tends to get right? What would a healthy synthesis of those correct understandings look like regarding factuality?
McManus: Well, it is tough to talk about it as a binary, especially within the U.S. political system, which is heavily influenced by money. When you have organizations like AIPAC and others flooding both Republican and Democratic spaces with funding, it distorts political perspectives on all sorts of issues—including antisemitism.
There is just so much money in politics now. It costs a fortune to run for anything, and individuals like Elon Musk or political action committees can flood the airwaves and influence discourse. That financial influence makes it hard to speak about ideology with clarity because I am not sure much ideology is left—at least not in the way we once thought of it. There may have been more ideological consistency in the past, but now, the overwhelming presence of money changes the game entirely.
All that said, I do think one thing both sides agree on is that antisemitism is real. There was a time when I was younger when people would say, “Oh, racism isn’t real anymore—it’s a thing of the past.” The same was said about antisemitism. But we are nowhere near being post-racial or post-antisemitic. Those are delusional ideas. They may be aspirational, and I’m fine with aspiration—but let’s not mistake aspiration for reality.
So yes, both political sides acknowledge the reality of antisemitism. However, both have also been corrupted by differing and often politicized definitions of what antisemitism is. The IHRA definition, for example, seeks to equate criticism of Israel or anti-Zionist viewpoints with antisemitism. I think that conflation has done real damage to public understanding.
So while it is good that people now take antisemitism seriously, the way it has been weaponized—particularly when aligned with campaign donors or threats to political standing—is deeply troubling. That kind of manipulation, in service to whoever is funding or threatening your campaign, is something we need to talk about more honestly.
There is this sense of, “Oh, well, if you do not side with us, we are going to fund someone to run against you.” That kind of corruption of the concept is hurting us. It makes it harder to help people understand what antisemitism is and how to counter it. I think politics, right now, is doing a disservice to those of us who have been fighting against antisemitism for a long time—trying to educate people on what it looks like and how to address it.
Jacobsen: One idea that has come up in a few of these interviews, including off-tape conversations, is the notion—or tacit argument—that antisemitism may not be something that can ever be fully eradicated but rather something perennial to mitigate as much as possible. The idea is that this might be a more realistic stance, given that people have whole lives to live, and activism, for most, comes in seasons. Few people are full-time activists. So it becomes about picking your spots, picking them well, and doing so throughout your life. What do you think of that idea?
McManus: It is pragmatic. One of the things I tried to do in the book—while it is primarily about race—is to help people understand how to integrate opposition to all forms of oppression, including antisemitism, into their daily lives.
I think the key, whether it is antisemitism or another form of oppression, is to make this a core part of who you are. Yes, there will be times when you speak up more or find an opportunity to act on a particular issue. But if it becomes part of your identity and value system, then it informs your daily decisions—what you purchase and from whom, what you accept in your friendships and relationships, how you vote on a school board, how you show up as a parent or student, and even how you approach hiring and promotion.
That is a more realistic and sustainable way to shift systems over time. Yes, for those of us who do this work full-time, we are focused on addressing systemic issues every day—and we are under attack right now, including those of us working against antisemitism. We are being targeted because we are clear about what antisemitism is.
And the vast majority of us are also saying we are against genocide. That has put us in opposition to much of the political rhetoric we have discussed. However, from that pragmatic standpoint, the best approach is for individuals to adopt these values as part of who they are.
When something becomes part of your core values, it guides your daily decisions. It determines what you support and what you reject. In the book, I pose a question: “How racist does a politician have to be for you not to vote for them?” Or, “How racist does a first date need to be before you decide not to go on a second one?”
These are real, everyday decisions. And we need to make opposition to any form of oppression part of our core values. When we do that, it becomes a consistent influence on everything we do.
It is not a “fix this tomorrow” kind of thing. I know where this is going. I am Gen X, and so we grew up with computers and microwave ovens—we were the first generation to have little to no patience.
But the reality is that we have been dealing with these issues of oppression for a long time. And for them to end, it is going to take time. It is going to take a shift in global culture. Frankly, it will take a change in how economies work, because they are all connected.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
In-Sight Publishing 